Assessing Orientations To Learning To Teach

41
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2002), 72, 41–64
2002 The British Psychological Society
Assessing orientations to learning to teach
Ida E. Oosterheert1
*, Jan D. Vermunt2
and E. Denessen3
1
University of Professional Education Arnhem/Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2
Department of Educational Development and Research, University of Maastricht,
The Netherlands
3
Department of Education, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Background. An important purpose of teacher education is that student teachers
develop and change their existing knowledge on learning and teaching. Research on
how student teachers variously engage in this process is scarce. In a previous study of
30 student teachers, we identified five different orientations to learning to teach.
Aims. Our aim was to extend the results of the previous study by developing an
instrument to assess orientations to learning to teach at a larger scale. The
development and psychometric properties of the instrument are discussed. The results
with respect to how student teachers learn are compared to the results of the
qualitative study.
Sample. Participants in this study were 169 secondary student teachers from three
institutes which had all adopted an initial in-service model of learning to teach.
Methods. On the basis of extensive qualitative study, a questionnaire was developed
to assess individual differences in learning to teach. Factor-, reliability-, and
nonparametric scalability analyses were performed to identify reliable scales. Cluster
analysis was used to identify groups of students with similar orientations to learning to
teach.
Results. Eight scales covering cognitive, regulative and affective aspects of student
teachers’ learning were identified. Cluster analysis indicates that the instrument
discriminates well between student teachers. Four of the five previously found patterns
were found again.
Conclusions. The four orientations found in relatively uniform learning environments
indicate that student teachers need differential support in their learning. Although the
instrument measures individual differences in a reliable way, it is somewhat one-sided
in the sense that items representing constructive ways of learning dominate. New
items forming a broader range of scales should be created.
www.bps.org.uk
* Requests for reprints should be addressed to Ida Oosterheert, University of Professional Education Arnhem/Nijmegen,
Faculty of Education, Schuylenburgweg 3, PO Box 30011, 6503 HN Nijmegen, The Netherlands (e-mail:
Ida.Oosterheert@Is.han.nl).

Since Lortie (1975) highlighted the influence of teachers’ own educational socialisation
on their teaching, the major focus in the field of teacher education has been on finding
ways to change student teachers’ prior beliefs. The effects of curricular changes, aimed
at stimulating student teachers to reconstruct their prior beliefs and knowledge,
however, have been disappointing and inconsistent; some student teachers profit from
these interventions, others do not or only to a lesser extent (Calderhead, 1996; Nettle,
1998; Tillema, 1995).
In research on academic learning, where the study of individual learning has a longer
tradition, differential effects of curricular changes are now predominantly explained in
terms of students’ actual learning preferences and orientations. The way students
experience and interpret (new) aspects of their learning environment depends on their
views of, preferences for and orientations towards learning in a given educational
context (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001a; Vermetten, Vermunt, & Lodewijks, 1999).
There is also growing evidence that the origin of learners’ orientations towards learning
is largely affective (Niemivirta, 1999; Thompson, 1994). This is to say, that variables in
the affective domain cause learners to prefer the employment of specific learning
activities and regulation strategies above others. For example, some learners may
develop self-handicapping strategies (e.g., procastination, low goal-setting) to protect
their sense of self-worth (e.g., Thompson, 1994).
Understanding individual learners in learning to teach
If learners, in a given learning environment, differ with respect to the learning activities
they tend to employ, the question for teacher education is thus not only ‘what works’,
but also ‘what works at this moment for this student teacher’. Particularly with short
interventions, as teacher education programmes tend to be, it seems important to take
the ‘default’ learning habits of the student teachers into account. Enrolment in a teacher
education programme also implies an adaptation to a learning environment where
personal experiences suddenly are an important resource. Several recent studies have
demonstrated that the need to adapt to a new learning environment may cause ‘periods
of friction’ in students’ learning, in which they tend to show incoherent learning
behaviour (Lindblom-Ylänne, 1999; Vermetten et al., 1999).
In order to educate effectively, or provide learning opportunities in the zone of
students’ proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978; see also Vermunt & Verloop, 1999),
teacher educators thus need knowledge of (1) how student teachers differ in using their
learning environment, and of (2) how these differences may be more or less beneficial
to learning to teach. Educators must better understand what it takes for different
student teachers to learn to teach (see also Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Nettle, 1998) and
which activities help different learners grow in this process.
Understanding learning to teach
In an attempt to improve our understanding of learning to teach, we investigated what
it takes for student teachers to regulate their use of various information sources,
including their own teaching experiences (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001b). Several
building blocks with their origin in cognitive theories of how the human nervous
system works were proposed for a theory of learning to teach (e.g., Frijda, 1986; Iran-
Nejad, 1990; Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992; Marcel, 1983). In addition to external
sources, two internal sources of self-regulation were suggested to be involved in
42 Ida E. Oosterheert et al.

learning to teach: active and dynamic self-regulation (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001b).
Active self-regulation is a deliberate and intentional focus on specific details of new
(experiential) information and one’s (emerging) understandings. In contrast to what is
predominantly emphasised in the literature on self-regulation (Howard-Rose & Winne,
1993; Winne, 1995; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989) and the literature on reflection (e.g.,
Korthagen, 1993), active self-regulation is here assumed to play only an intermediate
role in the process of understanding new information. The contributions of active
learning strategies to knowledge construction are increasingly being recognised as
limited to the extent that they influence the activity of dynamic sources (Iran-Nejad &
Chissom, 1992).
Iran-Nejad and his colleagues have proposed dynamic self-regulation as the
spontaneous delegation of attention to multiple independently and simultaneously
functioning mind sources, which may reframe existing understandings. A learner can
actively engage in deliberate activities to reach understanding, but the insight emerges
dynamically. Thus, active self-regulation alone cannot generate a reconceptualisation of
prior knowledge, whereas dynamic self-regulation can. A predominant reliance on
dynamic self-regulation is, however, ineffective for student teachers, as they then
become dependent on the richness of the context they are in; they themselves do not
actively search for and use new information. We therefore concluded that student
teachers must learn to use both active and dynamic sources of self-regulation.
Information from external sources (i.e., teacher educators, mentor teachers, own
experiences, books) should be used to ‘feed’ the activities of active and dynamic
sources. In addition, we argued that the ability or readiness of student teachers to
involve external sources as well as active and dynamic sources in their learning may
depend on how emotionally risky it is for them to change their perceptions of
classroom reality. Research shows this risk for learners with high self-esteem to be
significantly lower (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001b).
Understanding individual differences
During the last decade, researchers have increasingly addressed their attention to
student teachers’ learning. Some studies focused on student teachers’ beliefs about the
role of specific information sources in their learning to teach, such as their own field
experiences (Johnston, 1994) or their mentor teacher (Zanting, Verloop, Vermunt, &
Van Driel, 1998). Others have focused on the relations between students’ personality/
attitudinal characteristics and (judged) teaching behaviour (Kourilsky, Esfandiari, &
Wittrock, 1996; Robinson, Noyes, &Chandler, 1989). For instance, being ‘enterprising’,
showing a ‘willingness to take risks’ and being ‘mature’ have been found to be
associated with progressive ways of teaching. Others have examined student teachers’
actual activities in greater detail. For example, Korthagen (1988) distinguishes
‘internally oriented’ student teachers who tend to learn by means of reflection and
‘externally oriented’ student teachers who tend to build on the support and advice of
others during their learning. With respect to the affective side of learning to teach, Leat,
McManus, Bramald, and Baumfield (1995) have found that ‘strong’ student teachers
tend to deal differently with bad lessons than ‘weak’ student teachers. Strong student
teachers acknowledge any negative emotions after bad lessons and attribute internally
whereas ‘weak’ student teachers do the opposite. Kubler-LaBoskey (1993) was one of
the first to consider multiple aspects of student teachers’ learning within a single study,
43

and came up with a continuum from ‘common-sense thinkers’, via ‘alert novices’ to
‘pedagogical thinkers’, to characterise individual student teachers.
In keeping with this broader approach, we conducted an interview study among 30
Dutch secondary student teachers (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001a). The purpose of the
study was to (1) systematically map individual differences in learning to teach and (2)
improve our understanding of student teachers’ individual learning by examining how
the cognitive, regulative and affective components of learning interact within
individuals. In this respect, we aimed at contributing to a more integrated theory of
learning to teach, starting from a ‘. . . whole- person view of human learners as
individuals’ (Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; see also Niemivirta, 1999; Vermetten et al.,
1999).
The following broad components of learning to teach were considered in our
previous study: mental models of learning to teach, cognitive processing activities, and
regulation strategies including emotion regulation. For the interviews, the components
were divided into eight underlying aspects of learning to teach. In addition, each
student teacher’s predominant ‘concern’ was considered (Fuller, 1969). The responses
of the student teachers with respect to these components were qualitatively analysed,
resulting in the identification of three to five categories per component. Homogeneity
analyses showed the different categories to be related to each other within individuals.
Five distinct patterns of categories could be discerned. Two were construed as
‘reproduction’ oriented and two as ‘meaning’ oriented. The reproduction orientations
are aimed at the improvement of performance by gathering ‘cut-and-dried’ practical
suggestions while the meaning orientations are aimed at the improvement of
performance by also developing a better understanding of teaching and learning. The
different orientations can be divided according to how student teachers approach the
problems they encounter. ‘Open’ learners acknowledge that they have a problem,
communicate about it and act upon it. ‘Closed’ learners may use solutions that happen
to occur or ‘pass by’, but do not bring their problems out into the open. The fifth
pattern represents a ‘survival’ orientation, and encompasses an undirected way of
‘learning by doing’, accompanied by ad hoc adaptations to serious problems (see here
below).
In the end, the following groups could be distinguished (see Oosterheert & Vermunt,
2001a). Open meaning student teachers are highly self-regulative. To improve their
teaching effectiveness, they try to improve their understanding of teaching and learning
using all sources; problems are defined as problems of performance and understanding;
deep emotions (e.g., anxiety and powerlessness) may be part of this process and a
stimulus to learn. Closed meaning student teachers depend on external regulation for
the development of their frame of reference on teaching and learning. They define
problems as problems of performance but spontaneously recognise conceptual
information connected to their implicit problems of understanding; secondary
emotions (e.g., frustration, being fed up) are part of their learning process and
function as stimuli to learn.
Open reproductive student teachers rely heavily on external regulation to improve
their performance and try to develop a personal teaching style. They are not directed at
understanding the significance of their actions and events. They define problems as
problems of performance; secondary emotions play a role in their learning and function
as stimuli to learn. Closed reproductive student teachers are self-regulative with regard
to the realisation of their ‘ideal self as a teacher’; they are not directed at understanding
the significance of their actions and events; external information is appreciated in so far

as it helps solve an already experienced problem and feels good immediately. These
student teachers define their problems as problems of performance. Their problems
indicate an experienced discrepancy between their actual teaching and a well-
established image of teaching and of being a teacher. In the light of this image,
something has still to be dealt with effectively. They avoid emotional experiences or
have secondary emotions which are often an impediment to their learning.
Finally, survival-oriented student teachers are not concerned with improving their
performance or developing their own frame of reference on teaching and learning;
external information is appreciated when it provides a solution to an already
experienced severe problem; these student teachers define problems mainly as
problems on the part of their pupils; survival is the dominant concern and emotional
experiences are avoided.
A restriction on these results was their poor generalisability. First, the number of
students involved in this study was limited (N=30). Second, homogeneity analyses do
not allow for much generalisation (de Heus, van der Leeden, & Gazendam, 1995). To
extend the results, we therefore developed an instrument to measure approaches to
learning to teach on a larger scale. Based on the qualitative study, the first version of this
instrument was administered to 169 secondary student teachers. The development and
psychometric properties of the instrument will be discussed in the present article.
Thereafter, the results with respect to how student teachers learn will be compared to
the results of the first study.
The present study
Context
The focus of the study was not on the effects of an educational intervention. We treated
the existing curriculum and methods as a given, and not as the object of study itself. In
order to control for any differences in the curricula, it was thus important to find
students enrolled in relatively uniform settings. It was also important to find learning
environments without a clearlystructural ‘gap between theory and practice’ in the form
of ‘practice in school’ separate from ‘meetings at the institute’. For this purpose,
environments in which all the sources of information were tightly linked were sought.
Three institutes which had all adopted an initial in-service model of learning to teach
were selected.
In the Netherlands, a growing number of teacher education institutes are opting for
some type of in-service programme. The common purposes of these programmes are
twofold. First, they aim at providing the opportunity to student teachers to go through
the first independent teaching period during teacher education, with adequate
support. The idea is that after having passed this crucial and often unpleasant stage, in
which student teachers experience the complexity of ‘real teaching’, there is more
space in the student teacher for further learning. Second, the programmes aim at
connecting knowledge growth with regard to learning and teaching as directly as
possible to personal teaching experiences. In order to do this, student teachers are
given the opportunity to function as full teachers (but with a limited number of
teaching hours: 6–10 per week) during a relatively long period of time (an average of 5
months up to a year). Observation of others in their classroom is rare. Students have
their mentor teacher in their school and spend at least one day a week at the teacher
education institute, where fellow students and educators help and stimulate them to
45

learn further. Although the emphasis is on their own teaching development, the student
teachers may also participate in staff meetings, be (partly) responsible for the contact
with the pupils’ parents and participate in innovative activities of the school.
In order to obtain a representative sample of secondary (in-service) student teachers
in the Netherlands, we selected both students enrolled in university programmes (UP)
and students enrolled in higher vocational programmes (VP). The three teacher
education institutes we selected (one VP and two UP) were from three different
geographical parts of the country.
Research questions
The research questions guiding the present study were as follows:
What is the underlying structure of the instrument?
Can different patterns of learning be distinguished with the instrument?
To what extent do these resemble the patterns found in the first study?
Method
Participants
The participants were 169 Dutch secondary student teachers enrolled in initial in-
service programmes; 93 VP students from one higher vocational institute, and 76 UP
students from two universities. Of the total group, 80%of the students were between
21 and 26 years of age. There were more women than men (2:1). Students representing
the alpha-disciplines (modern and ancient languages) were larger in number (45%
) than
students in the beta-disciplines (19.5%
) (sciences and information technology), gamma-
disciplines (26.6%
) (e.g., health education, history, geography) and arts (8.3%
) (e.g.,
drawing, drama, music). This was at the time of the study a fairly common distribution
in Dutch secondary teacher education. Analysis of variance showed that the VP and UP
groups did not differ with respect to the number of hours they taught per week. At the
time of the study, 24.3%of the total group had taught independently for 3 to 6 months;
69.2%for more than 6 months; and 6.6%for less than two months. In other words,
93.4%of our sample involved students likely to have passed the survival stage (see
below). No individuals were excluded from the analyses.
The instrument
To develop the questionnaire items, we drew on actual statements from the interviews
with the student teachers in our previous study. The items should represent the
essence of the different categories associated with the eight aspects of learning to teach
and the additional aspect ‘concern’. It should be noted that the categories in the first
study were developed within persons; that is, the relation between statements and
participants was retained during the protocol analysis. As a consequence, in our
previous study, several categories are cumulative; one category may involve another.
Each set of items representing a category in the previous study was thus not – a priori –
expected to form the underlying structure of the instrument in the present study (cf.
Slaats, Lodewijks, & van der Sanden, 1999; Vermunt, 1996). The underlying structure of
the total item-set was still to be discovered.

Item construction
The construction of the items occurred in four steps. First, items were constructed on
the basis of the category descriptions. The ‘codes’ associated with a category and the
representative statements were taken as the start. Second, an initial set of items was
administered to four student teachers in a pilot study, resulting in the omission of such
terms as ‘trial and error’ and ‘evaluation’, because of their negative connotations and
normative use during institutional meetings. The recommendations of the students
themselves were used to find alternatives. The students also provided helpful
comments with respect to the cover letter, lay-out and instruction. Third, a similar
pilot procedure was followed with a group of nine (university) teacher educators, both
individually and in small groups. One issue raised in this group was the risk of
semantically determined scales; items may simply cluster according to the information
sources mentioned in the items, regardless of the learning activities employed. We
nevertheless decided to choose one term for most sources of information due to
between and within institute differences with respect to the terms used. We also
decided to include a short introduction to the terms in the questionnaire and instructed
the educators to explicitlypoint out the importance of reading this introduction to their
students. Fourth, three to six items per category were made definitive, resulting in a
total of 103 items. The first 38 items from the questionnaire related to mental models of
learning to teach; the next 52 items related to learning activities including regulation
and concerns; and the last 13 items related to emotion regulation in particular. Tables 1
through 3 list the items that remained after the analyses. The items were scored on
Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree) for the first 38 items and from 1
(does not hold true for me) to 5 (holds true for me) for the remaining items. Each
concern was represented by one item only. For example, the concern ‘pedagogy’ was
measured by the item: ‘At present, I am basically occupied with finding methods and
teaching materials by which I can improve my teaching’. The questionnaires were
accompanied by a cover letter briefly explaining the background and purpose of the
study. Teacher educators were given a letter explaining the purpose of the study and
the conditions under which the questionnaire was supposed to be filled out.
Procedure
At the time of the study, all of the participants had at least two to three months of
experience with ‘independent teaching.’ We chose this particular point of time for our
study, because we assumed that differences in how students learn are more likely to be
found and more pronounced after the first months of independent teaching than
during. During the first months, most students are preoccupied with establishing a
balance in their teaching; their predominant concern is (at least) to survive. We were
interested in how students go about their learning after this stage. The literature shows
that for some students this stage provides a basis for further learning, while for others it
does this only to a lesser extent (Buitink, 1998; Calderhead, 1996; Tillema, 1995). The
questionnaire was distributed to the student teachers during small-group meetings and
accompanied by a brief introduction from the teacher educator. Participation was
voluntary and the student teachers were not rewarded for their participation in
whatever form. The student teachers were not asked to give their names and addresses.
Most of the student teachers (about 60%
) were given time to complete the
questionnaire during the meeting. The rest were asked to complete the questionnaire
at home. The teacher educators who distributed the questionnaires also collected them,
47

put them immediately in a big envelope, and returned them to the central contact
person from their institute. The educators also reported how many questionnaires were
distributed to start with. The contact individuals sent the questionnaires back to the
researcher. The response rate was 72%for both the VP and UP groups.
Data analyses
Principal component analyses were applied to the answers provided by the 169 student
teachers to investigate the dimensionality of each part the questionnaire separately: (1)
mental models, (2) learning activities & regulation and (3) emotion regulation. The
‘concerns’ items were not included in these analyses, because concerns are not, in this
study, considered as part of, but rather as related to ways of learning. To identify sets of
items with a high degree of interconnectedness, we applied reliability analyses
(Cronbach’s alpha) and also computed scalability coefficients to select homogeneous
sets of items from the questionnaire. The scalability coefficients were based on the
nonparametric probabilistic scalogram method of item analysis developed by Mokken
(1970). The scalability coefficient computed to measure the homogeneity of items is
called Loevinger’s H-coefficient, which indicates the degree of scalability for items
within a particular scale. By default, a lower bound of .30 is to identify an acceptable set
of items (Molenaar, 1991). With respect to the reliability analyses, the reliabilities
should be optimal in the sense that (further) deletion of items would not lead to a
considerable increase in the alphas. The combination of factor analyses and scalogram
analyses leads to well distinguished sets of items with a relatively high degree of
interconnectedness. This approach, however, may also result in a severe selection of
items, and thus, a reduction in number of items to be used further.
Results
Mental models of learning to teach
Based on the percentage explained variance and the resulting scree plot, the data
suggest a one-dimensional representation for the mental models of student teachers.
Many of the items did not meet our criteria for internal consistency (scalability
coefficient must be greater than .30; reliability must be optimal for the selected items).
After removal of the weak items, one dimension with 10 items was found to represent
the mental models of the student teachers (Cronbach’s alpha = .79; Loevinger’s
H = .38). Component analysis of these 10 items showed 41.2%of the item variance to
be explained by one dimension (additional explanation with two dimensions 13.9%
;
three dimensions 9.9%
; and four dimensions 8.2%
). The results of this analysis are
presented in Table 1.
The items on this single dimension refer to learning activities such as analysing,
thinking in general, seeking causes, interpreting, becoming aware and trying to
understand. The students themselves should engage in such activities, and the mentor
teacher and teacher educators should guide and stimulate them in this process.
Emotional support from the mentor teacher and/or teacher educators is appreciated. As
a whole, this dimension can be interpreted as a constructive view of learning to teach;
student teachers actively develop their own interpretive frame of reference, with the
support, knowledge and experience of others. We have thus labelled this dimension
developing a frame of reference.

Learning activities
The principal component analyses applied to those items pertaining to learning
activities resulted in five dimensions. The relative gain of explained variance decreased
with six or more dimensions, and a good interpretation of these five dimensions was
possible. The principal component analysis with five dimensions explained 53%of the
variance, as can be seen from Table 2.
Learning activities 1
The item with the highest loading on the first dimension (.77) refers to theory
experienced as useful. The other items indicate that externally provided conceptual
information is actively used; it is explicitly and successfully related to practice. We
therefore labelled this dimension actively relating theory to practice.
The second dimension represents items referring to a proactive use of the mentor
teacher; students ask mentor teachers for practical suggestions, for the mentors’
interpretations of a particular lesson situation and for comments on their performance.
The suggestions are always, in one way or another, useful. The domain to which the
items refer is restricted to the students’ own teaching. As the dimension pertains to
both surface and deep strategies, we have labelled it proactive, broad use of mentor.
Table 1. Pattern coefficients for principal component analysis, communalities (h2
) and explained
percentage of variance for mental models of learning to teach (N=163)
Items Pattern h2
Coefficients
Developing a frame of reference
I appreciate the help of tutors in analysing lesson situations that I .74 .45
don’t understand
I consider it important that tutors or the mentor teacher stimulate me to .70 .45
reflect about my teaching
If something doesn’t work out well in a lesson, I consider I should .67 .30
search for the cause
I think that tutors or my mentor teacher should provide me .67 .39
with emotional support
Learning to teach in my view implies that I make my own efforts to .62 .34
understand how I can bring about a learning process in pupils
I think it is important that the mentor teacher should tell me why .59 .49
(s)he interprets specific teaching situations in particular ways
I consider it important that others make me aware of the way I behave .57 .54
in the classroom
Learning to teach means for me that I myself try to develop .55 .33
insight into how pupils learn within my subject discipline
% variance explained 41.21 41.21
49

Table 2. Pattern coefficients for varimax rotated principal component analysis, communalities (h2
) and
explained percentage variance for learning activities (N=153).
Items C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 H2
Actively relating theory to practice
My experience is that in my teaching I can’t make 7.77 7.02 .02 7.04 7.05 .59
much use of the theoretical information my tutors offer
The way I now want to teach is the result of constantly .64 .02 .22 .15 7.21 .53
linking theory to my teaching experience
After a session at the institute, I try to recognise the .60 7.04 7.04 .32 7.07 .47
theory discussed there in subsequent lessons
I have difficulty in relating theory to my own teaching 7.66 7.12 7.02 .19 7.07 .50
experiences
I try to relate theory to my own teaching experiences .66 .06 .31 7.08 .10 .55
I do not use theory to improve my lessons 7.64 7.07 7.24 .08 7.06 .48
Proactive, broad use of mentor
I ask my mentor teacher why according to her/him .07 .77 .02 .04 .02 .61
something in my lesson went in that particular way
I ask my mentor teacher what (s)he thinks is going on 7.06 .78 .11 7.03 .15 .64
in particular situations
I ask my mentor teacher what (s)he thinks is good or .06 .66 .01 .00 .17 .48
not good about my lessons
The practical suggestions my mentor teacher makes for .08 .67 7.07 .00 7.06 .47
solving particular problems are somehow always
meaningful
I ask my mentor teacher how (s)he would handle the 7.02 .63 .26 .05 .09 .48
same situation.
I try to find out what my mentor teacher takes into .15 .51 .17 .06 7.27 .38
account when deciding what to do in a specific situation
Developing views/ideas through discussion
I actively participate in discussions between .06 .21 .73 7.02 .13 .60
experienced teachers about education
I develop my ideas about education through discussion .10 .20 .74 .06 .12 .62
with experienced teachers in my training school
I approach teachers in my training school to ask them .15 7.13 .68 .06 7.06 .50
their ideas about particular educational innovations
I ask experienced teachers in my training school what .07 .00 .61 .07 7.20 .42
they think about my opinions about teaching
In my training school I ask other teachers how they .08 .23 .51 .11 .34 .45
tackle particular problems in their lessons
Reactively relating theory to practice
Only when a particular practical suggestion/tip is 7.19 .11 .07 .68 .20 .56
offered do I realise that I need it
Often I recognise theory provided by tutors only after 7.12 7.17 .14 .66 7.05 .50
some course of time in seeing and hearing what goes on
in my teaching
I notice that as a result of specific teaching experiences, .20 .11 7.14 .75 7.07 .65
I suddenly understand the meaning of theory discussed
earlier in college

The third dimension represents items referring to consultation of (experienced)
colleagues at school to obtain alternative practical suggestions and expand one’s
reference base. Two items refer to active participation in discussions, without reference
to intention. We nevertheless consider these intentional as well, because it is generally
quite easy to not participate actively in such informal discussions. Ahigh score on this
dimension thus indicates intentional engagement in discussions with teachers to
develop one’s own views and ideas about teaching. The label we have chosen is
developing views/ideas through discussion.
This dimension, in contrast to dimension one, refers to the spontaneous use of
conceptual information. The first two items most clearly represent this non-deliberate,
non-intentional use of conceptual information, as it almost appears to occur by surprise;
when information passes by, students become aware of its connection to their implicit
questions and problems. We have therefore labelled this dimension reactively relating
theory to practice.
The three items on this dimension refer to the criteria which students use to judge their
lesson(s) as satisfactory. The criteria include motivation, working climate and the
quality of pupils’ learning during their lessons. As a whole, the dimension indicates the
degree to which student teachers adopt a pupil-oriented approach to teaching. We
labelled this dimension pupil-oriented evaluation criteria.
Items C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 H2
Only when tutors provide theoretical information do I .18 .05 .20 .70 .08 .57
become aware that I was unconsciously searching for
that information
Through the theory discussed during meetings .54 .13 7.11 .45 7.17 .55
at the institute, I can better place new experiences
Pupil oriented evaluation criteria
My satisfaction with a lesson is largely determined by .03 .06 7.10 7.03 .66 .46
the degree to which there was a good working climate in
the classroom
I am satisfied with a lesson particularly when it seems 7.11 7.10 .03 .13 .76 .61
from the pupils’ attitude/motivation that the subject
matter was getting through to them
I am satisfied with a lesson particularly when I see that .09 .21 .21 7.02 .72 .62
the way pupils solve problems during the lesson signals
that they are understanding the material
% variance explained 12.66 12.24 10.51 9.55 8.05 53.01
Loadings > = .30 and <= 7.30 are in bold
51

Emotion regulation
Finally, analysis of the items pertaining to the regulation of emotions revealed two
dimensions, which could also be well interpreted. As can be seen from Table 3, the total
percentage of the variance explained by these two dimensions is 57.89.
Emotion regulation 1
This dimension refers to the emotional experience itself. A high score indicates a
relatively intense and long-lasting response to the subjective significant situation (see
Introduction); bad teaching experiences keep going through one’s head and one needs
considerable time to recover. The response touches upon one’s own self. ‘Seeking
reassurance’ and also considering ‘one’s own contribution’ are the actions included in
this dimension. We have labelled this dimension preoccupation.
Emotion regulation 2
The items on this dimension refer to not thinking about bad lessons in general, not
considering one’s own contribution to a bad lesson and not trying to find solutions for
one’s next lessons. Together, the items indicate an avoidance of thinking and doing
something about bad teaching experiences. We have therefore labelled this dimension
avoidance.
Scale construction
After assessment of the dimensionality of the student teachers’ orientations, scale
scores were computed by calculating the student teachers’ mean item scores for each
dimension. Items with negative loadings were recoded, and eight scores were
Table 3. Pattern coefficients for varimax rotated principal component analysis, communalities (h2
) and
explained percentages of variance for emotion regulation (N=167).
Items E1 E2 H2
Preoccupation
A lesson which went wrong keeps going through my head at least .80 7.05 .64
for the rest of that day
After a troubling teaching experience I need a tutor or mentor .68 .18 .50
teacher to tell me whether this kind of thing is normal at this stage
It takes quite a time for me to get over a bad teaching experience .80 .30 .72
When a lesson gets out of hand, I mainly feel upset. .62 .41 .55
Avoidance (recoded)
I try to find out what my own contribution was to a lesson getting .45 7.66 .64
out of hand
I do not think about a lesson that went badly 7.33 .65 .53
After a lesson that went wrong, I try to find a solution for the next .21 7.65 .47
lesson
% variance explained 33.53 24.36 57.89
Loadings > = .30 and <= 7.30 are in bold

computed for each student teacher. In Table 4, the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s
alpha), scalability coefficients (Loevinger’s H) and descriptive statistics for these eight
scales are summarised.
As can be seen from Table 4, the reliability and scalability of these eight scales was
quite sufficient. The mean scores on the mental model scale developing a frame of
reference and the mean scores on the evaluation criteria scale pupil orientation are
rather high, while the mean scores on the emotion regulation scale avoidance are low.
Table 5 shows the intercorrelations for the eight scales1
.
The consistently significant correlations with the mental model scale show the other
scales to zoom in on different aspects of constructive learning. In addition, there is a
low positive correlation between avoidance and reactive T-P, while all of the other
scales correlate negatively with avoidance. Apparently, non-intentional activities as
measured here are associated with a slight tendency to avoid, a finding which we will
elaborate on in our discussion.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities (alpha), scalability coefficients (H) and number of items
for eight scales
Mean SD N(listwise) Alpha H Number
of Items
Develop frame of reference 4.08 .56 163 .79 .38 8
Active T-P 2.93 .74 167 .72 .47 6
Broad use of mentor 3.55 .80 167 .78 .40 6
Discussion 3.17 .74 169 .67 .40 5
Reactive T-P 2.65 .73 166 .70 .35 5
Pupil-oriented evaluation 3.98 .62 165 .64 .43 3
Preoccupation 3.05 1.00 168 .75 .50 4
Avoidance 1.58 .64 168 .55 .43 3
1
For the computation of scale scores we did not use factor scores but computed Likert scores based on the factor structure.
Therefore, some correlation can emerge between separate scales.
Table 5. Correlations between scales
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Develop frame 1
2. Active T-P .19* 1
3. Mentor .37** .12 1
4. Discussion .23** .25** .30** 1
5. Reactive T-P .26** .11 .15 .10 1
6. Pupil .28** .15 .20** .06 .08 1
7. Preoccupation .16* .07 7.02 .08 .12 .08 1
8. Avoidance 7.22** 7.11 7.16** 7.17* .17* 7.29** 7.12
* p<.05 **p<.01
53

Cluster analysis
In order to distinguish different patterns of learning, cluster analyses were also
conducted on the eight scale scores. The student teachers were divided into clusters
using Ward’s method of squared Euclidean distances between scores (Ward, 1963). To
determine the number of clusters best representing the different types of student
teachers, the amount of variance in the eight scale scores explained by several different
numbers of clusters was assessed. Analyses of variance of eight scores as dependent
variables and cluster membership as independent variable were applied. A four-cluster
solution appeared to explain the most variance in the mean scale scores for the
different student teachers. The percentages variance in the scale scores explained by a
division of the student teachers into four clusters were on average 29%
: the differences
in the use of pupil-oriented evaluation criteria are only explained by the four clusters of
student teachers to a small degree (12%
), while the differences for avoidance are largely
explained by the four different clusters of student teachers (53%
). The four clusters
show significant differences on each of the eight scales, which indicates that differences
within clusters are relatively small compared to differences between clusters.
Characterisation of four clusters
Figure 1 presents the mean standardised scores for each of the four clusters on the
scales included in the cluster analyses.
Cluster 1
Of all the student teachers, these student teachers disagree most with a view of learning
to teach in terms of developing a frame of reference. This goes along with a restricted
use of the learning environment, because their scores on the four ‘activities’ scales are
relatively low. Conceptual information provided by others is hardly used, either
intentionally or non-intentionally (see introduction), which implies that these learners
are not engaged in knowledge construction. When evaluating their teaching, they are
Figure 1. Mean standardised scores for four clusters of student teachers on eight scales

not particularly pupil oriented or the opposite. Bad teaching experiences may generate
action on the part of these student teachers; they nevertheless approach such
experiences without being preoccupied by them. This cluster is most consistent with
the pattern labelled closed reproduction oriented in our previous study.
Cluster 2
The student teachers in this cluster favour a view of learning to teach in terms of
developing a frame of reference. They actively interact with all available sources and
relate the information from different sources intentionally and to a lesser extent non-
intentionally. When evaluating their teaching, they are pupil oriented. They approach/
confront bad teaching experiences but are not preoccupied by them. This cluster
resembles the pattern labelled open meaning oriented in our previous study.
Cluster 3
These student teachers agree with a view of learning to teach in terms of developing a
frame of reference and relypredominantly on non-intentional processes to achieve this.
With respect to their use of available sources of information they take a moderate
position, with the lowest mean score on the scale ‘discussion’. When evaluating their
teaching, they are pupil oriented. They approach bad teaching experiences and are
highly preoccupied by them. This cluster resembles the pattern labelled closed
meaning oriented in our previous study.
Cluster 4
The student teachers in this cluster do not favour a view of learning to teach in terms of
developing a frame of reference. In their schools, they do not initiate communication
with their experienced colleagues or their mentor teacher. This implies that they do not
engage in discussions, do not ask for practical suggestions or alternative interpretations
and do not invite others to comment on their teaching or ideas. Externally provided
conceptual information is used only non-intentionally. The student teachers in this
cluster do not use pupil oriented criteria to evaluate their teaching. They are extremely
avoidant and moderately preoccupied with bad teaching experiences. This cluster very
much resembles the pattern labelled survival in our previous study.
Concerns
As stated in the introduction, student teachers may differ with regard to their main
concern. Three basic concerns were measured: (1) maintenance of discipline in the
classroom, (2) teaching methods, approaches and materials (pedagogy), and (3) pupils’
thinking and learning. The mean scores on these basic concerns for the four clusters of
student teachers distinguished above are presented in Table 6.
Closed meaning oriented student teachers are rather highly concerned with
discipline in the classroom, particularly when compared to closed reproduction
oriented student teachers. This is in accordance with the former’s preoccupation with
bad teaching experiences (see Figure 1). Interestingly, survival oriented student
teachers take a middle position with respect to this concern. Their ad hoc way of
learning to teach may thus not always relate to severe classroom management
55

problems. Furthermore, an open meaning orientation is rather highly associated with a
concern for pupils’ learning, while a closed reproduction orientation is least associated
with such a concern. The smallest differences were found for the pedagogy concern,
with survival oriented student teachers producing the lowest scores.
Conclusions and discussion
The scales: Content.
This study resulted in the identification of eight scales measuring individual differences
in learning to teach: one scale measuring a mental model, five scales measuring how
student teachers use information sources and two scales measuring how students deal
with the emotions aroused as a result of bad teaching experiences.
The mental model we found is in line with the current literature, which suggests that
personal experience should not only serve as a testing ground but also as a source for
the generation of new questions, which can only occur when practice evokes questions
in student teachers of ‘why’, and ‘how does this work’ (Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993).
According to this mental model, the learner-practice interaction is too limited; others
must also help students by pointing out their blind spots and presenting alternative
interpretations which the students would not think of on their own. Both self- and
external regulation are associated with this mental model. The student teachers clearly
believe that they should engage in constructive learning activities but also appreciate
guidance and help from others during this process. This is not in accordance with a
study conducted by Vermunt (1998), in which external regulation was exclusively
associated with reproductive learning and self-regulation with meaningful, constructive
learning. However, in an earlier study by Vermunt (1996) and also in a study by
Vermetten (1999), self-regulation and external regulation were both related to a
constructive way of learning. Vermetten explained her findings in terms of the
existence of several information sources in the learning environment where her study
took place; all of these sources can be used to regulate student learning. In contrast to
non-vocational higher education, teacher education is an exceptionally rich formal
learning environment, as a variety of sources of information is available to student
teachers. In the present mental model, the optimal use of these external sources of
information is included.
Two scales pertaining to learning activities and regulation, referring to active,
intentional and reactive, non-intentional learning activities, support that not only
deliberate processing plays a role in knowledge growth in learning to teach. The former
Table 6. Mean scores on three basic concerns for four clusters (item scores range from 1 to 5) and
differences between clusters (&
2
)
Concern Closed Open Closed Survival Total Z2
p
reproduction meaning meaning
Discipline 2.80 3.04 3.83 3.14 3.14 .06 .018
Pedagogy 3.91 4.08 4.08 3.67 3.93 .03 .159
Pupils’ learning 3.09 3.76 3.54 3.43 3.48 .06 .017
N 34 50 23 41 148

scale involves a deliberate effort to relate theory and practice, while the latter involves
spontaneous insights and spontaneous awareness of previously implicit needs, which
implies dynamic mental activity (Iran-Nejad, 1990; Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992). The
evaluation scale (scale five) encompasses evaluation criteria indicating an orientation
toward pupils’ learning and motivation. Ahigh score on this scale can be interpreted
as rather ‘advanced’ for beginning teachers, as the literature indicates that beginning
teachers, generally, are not yet much pupil-oriented (Kagan, 1992). Ahigh score on the
scales broad use of mentor and discussion at school indicate a self-initiated and broad
use of these sources. Low scores on these scales and the mentor scale in particular may
indicate an inability to regulate the use of these sources and/or a mismatch between
student and mentor teacher or school (teachers), resulting in a withdrawal of student
teachers from these information sources.
With respect to emotion regulation, the avoidance scale indicates how student
teachers react to a bad teaching experience. They may either avoid or confront the
situation. These two poles are very common in the emotion literature (Frijda, 1986;
Krohne, Hock, & Kohlmann, 1992; see also Leat et al., 1995). The other emotion
regulation scale, preoccupation, refers to the emotional experience itself, which can
last relatively long, be experienced as intense and cause serious worry for student
teachers. In theory, this need not be negative. When learners are aware of their
emotions, they can use these as a source of information just like any other source
(Frijda, 1986). But in this respect, learners differ. Some learners may not pay attention
to their emotional experiences and the situation in which these were aroused; others
may do this and thereby attempt to understand their own emotional reactions and
action tendencies. In such a manner, emotion can be an important learning stimulus
and contribute to self-knowledge. This is nevertheless more likely to occur in
individuals with high self-esteem (Frijda, 1986; Krohne et al, 1992). In sum, the
combined scores of the aforementioned two scales provide information on how student
teachers experience bad lessons and how they deal with them in terms of concrete
action. The scales do not, however, provide insight into how student teachers perceive
and use emotional experiences as a source of information. An extreme preoccupation
may, however, indicate an inability to look at and/or use emotions in a fruitful manner.
The scale structure
As expected, the scale structure differs from the category structure on which it is based.
Items representing a category from the previous study were not expected – a priori – to
form reliable scales. It is, nevertheless, remarkable that most of the items contributing
to the scales refer to what the more constructive learners tend to do. Most of the
intermediate items which belonged to the middle categories in the previous study and
represent a more reproductive way of learning did not form separate reliable scales and
were dropped from the instrument.
For example, only a constructive mental model was retained. An explanation may be
that non-constructive mental models, such as developing a teaching style by trial &
error or learning by doing, are not as strong and stable as a constructive mental model.
This is in line with our previous observation that many student teachers with such
conceptions were not immediately able to talk about their learning at the more abstract
level of a conception. Their conceptions appeared to be recapitulations of their
anecdotal thinking aloud during the interview (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001a). We
therefore suggested that mental models of students in a relatively new learning
57

environment such as teacher education may not be developed to the same extent as
those in a more standard academic learning environment. A study by Vermetten et al.
(1999) supports this explanation, moreover. After the first semester in a new learning
environment a diffuse factor structure was found and explained in terms of a period of
‘friction’, requiring students to adapt to the new environment.
However, in the previous interview study, students had no difficulties talking about
the cognitive and regulative activities, whereas also with respect to these aspects, the
more constructive (and some non-constructive) items contributed to reliable scales.
Therefore, other explanations for the loss of reproductive items may be possible too.
First, there may be the difference in instruments. The questionnaire differed from the
interview in that it covered what different students report about their learning.
Particularly in a new context, students may become more aware of certain activities, as
a result of completing a questionnaire. Asecond explanation relates to the fact that we
found a few reproductive (unrecoded) items in the predominantly constructive scales,
which is in line with our previous finding of partly cumulative activities. A meaning
orientation may encompass reproductive activities, which however function in a
different whole of activities and purposes (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001a). The weak
reliabilities of item-sets pertaining to non-constructive dimensions can thus perhaps be
explained by a tendency of all participants in our sample to score relatively high on
such items, resulting in a truncation of scores (see Vermetten, 1999). Two other
possibilities are that an open reproductive orientation may have a relatively short
duration in the development of student teachers’ orientations (Vermetten et al., 1999)
or may be a rare orientation, and thus gets lost in a larger sample.
It should be noted that the scale ‘reactively T-P’ does not cover all possible non-
deliberate processing activities. Spontaneous, implicit processing activities, generated
by previous active processing activities, have not been measured here (e.g., Iran-Nejad,
1990; Iran-Nejad & Chissom, 1992).
The clusters
At the cluster level, we see strong parallels between the results of the previous
interview study and the present study. First, student teachers clearlydiffer with respect
to how they learn. Second, both studies indicate the existence of several coherent
patterns of learning to teach, with clear relations between the mental models, cognitive
activities and regulative strategies used by the student teachers. Such coherent patterns
have also been found by Niemivirta (1999), Vermunt (1998) and Kubler-LaBoskey
(1993). Third, four clusters with very similar characteristics were identified in the two
studies.
Only the open reproduction orientation of the first study was not found in the
present study. This may be due to the absence of scales exclusively measuring the
reproductive aspects of learning to teach in the present study or to differences in the
instruments used (see above). Another explanation may reside in the context in which
the present study took place. Alearning environment with a strong focus on knowledge
construction and a tight link between conceptual information and practice may be
sufficiently strong to push students with a more open reproduction orientation towards
a (closed) meaning orientation. The in-service programmes involved in the present
study may have been more powerful than the ones involved in the first study three
years earlier. Some ‘constructive friction’ may have been created in the open
reproduction oriented learners (see, for example, Vermunt & Verloop, 1999;

Lindblom-Ylänne, 1999), and the learning environment may have successfully
stimulated students to engage in learning activities which they normally would not
engage in on their own.
The finding that the combined use of active and reactive constructive activities is
associated with meaning oriented ways of learning to teach supports the idea that both
have to be involved in knowledge growth in learning (to teach) (Iran-Nejad, 1990;
Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001b). The fact that open meaning oriented students have a
lower score on ‘reactive T-P’ than closed meaning oriented students is, in our view,
due to two items on this scale. The two items starting with ‘only as . . .’ indicate a
dependence on external sources for knowledge construction, which does not hold for
open meaning oriented students. Nevertheless, the closed meaning oriented students’
moderate mean score on ‘active T-P’ and high score on ‘reactive T-P’ indicates that
knowledge construction is most likely to occur when their internal system
spontaneously links new information to existing (implicit) interests or problems.
From the theory proposed in a previous article, this can be explained as a way of
avoiding the uncertainty of non-understanding (Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001b). The
low but significant positive correlation between the ‘avoidance’ and ‘reactive T-P’
scales also points in the same direction.
The extremely low scores on both the ‘active T-P ’ and ‘reactive T-P’ scales for closed
reproduction oriented students indicate that no reconceptualisation (‘reframing’) takes
place whatsoever. Teacher education seems to have the least influence on knowledge
construction for this group. A change of beliefs may be more difficult in closed
reproduction oriented learners than in survival oriented learners as the latter sometimes
engage, reactively, in constructive activities.
A comparison with other studies
A number of parallels to and differences from the results of other studies could be
detected. First, two of our patterns are very much in line with the prototypes described
by Kubler-LaBoskey (1993). Her description of ‘common-sense thinkers’ largely
resembles our ‘survival oriented’ student teachers: both emphasise learning-by-doing,
are hardly engaged in learning and are not particularly occupied with the pupils.
‘Pedagogical thinkers’ and ‘open meaning oriented’ students also have a lot in common:
they have a broad open interest, take initiative, are pupil oriented and try to understand.
The ‘alert novices’ in Kubler-LaBoskey’s study constitute a broad group of students who
‘begin closer to the pedagogical end of the continuum and may benefit from a reflective
educational program.’ These students depend more than pedagogical thinkers on
‘external motivations’ for their learning but also have an ‘inquiry orientation’,
‘passionate creeds’ and the ‘will to know’ (Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993). Given the more
differentiated characterisation of the students in our study, it is very possible that a re-
examination of the ‘alert novices’ would reveal differences in how these students use
and develop their frame of reference. The closed meaning oriented students and closed
reproduction oriented students in our studies clearly differ in this respect. Perhaps all
‘alert novices’ engage in an inquiry-like way of learning to teach, but some may be more
directed at actively improving their teaching performance within (closed reproduction)
and others beyond their existing interpretive frame of reference on teaching and
learning (closed meaning).
In a study by Leat et al. (1995) the approach/avoidance distinction of emotions or
feelings associated with bad lessons was also reported as in our study. In their study, the
59

‘stronger’ students tended to approach the feelings associated with bad teaching
experiences while the ‘weaker’ students tended to avoid them.
In our study, categories such as ‘internal’ and ‘external’ orientations as found by
Korthagen (1988) were not as distinct and did not distinguish ‘reflective’ from ‘non-
reflective’ student teachers. Open meaning oriented students were found to be
‘reflective’ while also acknowledging a dependence on and appreciation of advice and
guidance from outside. Closed reproduction oriented student teachers were ‘internally
oriented’, but also tended to elaborate on and confirm existing images and ideas.
Given the relatively clear differences in the students’ ways of learning, associated
concerns and pupil orientations (see also A
ûkerlind, 1999), we are inclined to conclude
that, when it comes to the promotion of knowledge construction in learning to teach, it
is indeed not so much what student teachers believe but how they believe that counts
(Rokeach, 1960, p. 6). Although a relation between the two often exists (see also
Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Meijer, 1999), a reluctance to change a belief is often the
problem and not the actual content of the belief. On the basis of her study of teachers’
practical knowledge of teaching reading comprehension in secondary education, Meijer
(1999) distinguishes three prototypes: subject matter oriented, student oriented and
student learning oriented. The latter is considered most preferable and the three types
of practical knowledge are associated with different types of ‘reflection’. Several other
studies have also reported some more ‘desirable’ (progressive, pedagogical, expert-like)
belief content to be associated with more open, active and continuous ways of learning
(see e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993; Meijer, 1999). We
would therefore like to argue that differences in the content of teachers’ practical
knowledge may clearly reflect how they have learned differently. The research
literature on teachers’ practical knowledge also shows them to think very differently
about almost every topic and that the degree of ‘shared’ knowledge is still unclear
(Meijer, 1999). Providing teachers with the (progressive) ‘wisdom of practice’ is
therefore ineffective, until these teachers are prepared to change the nature of their
belief system. Studies of teachers’ practical knowledge are also, thus, in our view more
likely to serve future teachers, when both the content and nature of their beliefs are
integrated within the same study; in such a manner, it can be determined which
‘content’ is most likelyto be accepted at which phase in student teachers’ development
as experiential learners.
Implications for practice
Amajor goal of teacher education today is for student teachers to develop and change
their existing frame of reference in accordance with current understandings of what
constitutes good teaching and learning. Given the effects of their own socialisation as a
pupil (Sugrue, 1997), this basically means that many student teachers may have to
change their current understanding of teaching, learning, and their own teaching
practice accordingly. Moreover, if the goal of teacher education is to prepare future
teachers for growing ‘expertise,’ student teachers must develop the ability to
continually reconsider their own existing interpretations and action repertoires and
thereby construct different, often more refined, views of reality on their own accord.
The present study indicates that manystudent teachers are not activelydirected at or do
not succeed in knowledge construction beyond their own existing frame of reference,
despite the relatively innovative educative context they find themselves in.
In our view, this is because students tend to approach and interpret their learning

environment using their existing mental models and learning repertoire (Vermunt,
1996). Given the different ways of learning found to occur in very similar contexts, we
believe that students may sometimes need guidance towards orientations which foster
knowledge growth. This implies different measures for different learners, and several
studies in the field of academic learning point to the importance of an integrated
approach; modifying a student’s way of learning certainly requires measures at the
cognitive level, but also at the more fundamental affective level (McCarthy & Schmeck,
1988; Marton & Booth, 1997; Vermetten et al., 1999).
Further research
The instrument presented here measures different aspects of learning to teach in a
reliable manner. The instrument is nevertheless somewhat one-sided in the sense that
items representing constructive and self-regulative ways of learning dominate. Although
such an emphasis may be an inherent characteristic of learning to teach in the relevant
teacher education setting, we still think that new items forming a broader range of
scales should be created to capture the non-constructive aspects of learning to teach,
which are not just the opposite of the constructive aspects. The revised instrument
should then be validated using a larger subject sample.
Several studies have demonstrated that students tend to apply instructional measures
in keeping with their own learning preferences (Vermunt, 1996). Astudy by Vermetten
(1999) revealed substantial interrelations between and personal variables and learning
strategies, which suggest that individual differences mediate the influence of the
learning environment. In the domain of learning to teach, the interrelations between
personal variables and teaching practices have been the subject of several studies (e.g.,
Kourilsky et al., 1996; Robinson et al., 1989). However, studies of the interrelations
between personal variables and different ways of learning to teach are, to our
knowledge, still scarce and small scale if conducted at all (Kubler-LaBoskey, 1993). Such
personality variables as ‘self-esteem’ and the ‘Big Five’ repeatedly seem to make a
difference in academic learning (Thompson, 1994; Vermetten, 1999). To examine
student-context interactions, contextual variables should therefore be included, such as
mentoring styles (Zanting et al., 1998) and the specific teaching methods or styles
employed by the teacher educators (see, e.g., Theophilides & Koutselini, 1998).
The present study was conducted at one specific moment in a teacher education
programme. It is very likely that students change their way of learning over time. It may
therefore be valuable to follow students across a longer period of time and thereby
capture possible changes. It may also be that certain orientations ‘endure’ longer than
others, as was suggested by Vermetten et al. (1999) or do not shift at all. We also
wonder whether a fixed order exists for how student teachers develop as experiential
learners. Such information would obviously enable teacher educators to better
anticipate the learning readiness of student teachers and their zone of proximal
development.
References
A
ûkerlind, G. S. (1999, August). Improving university teaching: How academics experience their
growth and development. Paper presented at the conference of the European Association for
Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Göthenborg, Sweden.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and
implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
61

Buitink, J. (1998). In-functie opleiden en in-functie leren van aanstaande leraren [Teaching and
learning in initial in-service teacher education]. Doctoral dissertation. Groningen University,
The Netherlands.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan; London: Prentice
Hall International.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226.
Gifi, A. (1981). Homals user’s guide. Leiden University, Department of Data Theory.
Heus, P. de, van der Leeden, R., & Gazendam, B. (1995). Toegepaste data-analyse. [Applied data-
analyses]. Lemma BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Howard-Rose, D. C., & Winne, P. H. (1993). Measuring components and sets of cognitive
processes in self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 591–604.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes. Review of
Educational Research, 60, 573–602.
Iran-Nejad, A., & Chissom, B. S. (1992). Contributions of active and dynamic self-regulation to
learning. Innovative Higher Education, 17, 125–136.
Johnston, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher; or is it? An analysis of the role of experience
in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 199–208.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 62 (2), 129–169.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (1988). The influence of learning orientations on the development of reflective
teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 35–50). Philadelphia,
PA: Falmer.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (1993). Two modes of reflection. Teacher & Teacher Education, 9 (3), 317–
326.
Kourilsky, M., Esfandiari, M., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Generative teaching and personality
characteristics of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (4), 355–363.
Krohne, H. W., Hock, M., & Kohlmann, C. (1992). Coping dispositions, uncertaintyand emotional
arousal. In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 2, pp. 73–
98). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kubler-LaBoskey, V. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in pre-service teacher
education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualising reflection in teacher
development (pp.23–38). London: Falmer Press.
Leat, D., McManus, L., Bramald, R., & Baumfield, V. (1995, September). Learning from classroom
experience: Some attributes of successful student teachers. Paper presented at the ECER
conference, Bath, England.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1999). Studying in a traditional medical curriculum – Study success,
orientations to studying, and problems that arise. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Helsinki, Finland.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: An approach to the relations
between phenomenal experience and perceptual processes. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 238–
300.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography – A research approach to understanding different
understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle
(Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

McCarthy, P., & Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Students’ self-concepts and the quality of learning in
public schools and universities. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning
styles (pp. 131–156). New York: Plenum Press.
Meijer, P. (1999). Teachers’ practical knowledge – Teaching reading comprehension in
secondary education. Doctoral dissertation. Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Mokken, R. J. (1970). A theory and procedure of scale analysis: With applications in political
research. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.
Molenaar, I. W. (1991). A weighted Loevinger H-coefficient extending Mokken scaling to
multicategory items. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 12 (37), 97–117.
Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (2), 193–204.
Nias, J. (1989). Teaching and the self. In M.L. Holly & C.S. McLoughlin (Eds.), Perspectives on
teachers’ professional development (pp. 155–171). London: Falmer Press.
Niemivirta, M. (1999, August). Habits of mind and academic endeavors – The role of goal
orientations and motivational beliefs in school performance. Paper presented at the 8th
European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Gothenburg, Sweden.
Oosterheert, I. E. (1998, August). Learning styles in learning to teach. Paper presented at the
joint meeting of the EARLI-SIGs ‘Higher Education’ and ‘Teaching & Teacher Education’ on
‘Educating Expert Minds for the 21th century’, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001a). Individual differences in learning to teach – Relating
cognition, regulation, and affect. Learning and Instruction, 11 (2), 133–156.
Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001b). Knowledge construction in learning to teach: The
role of dynamic sources. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Robinson, W. P., Noyes, P., & Chandler, P. (1989). Motivational and attitudinal predictors of
judged quality of novice primary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5 (3), 179–187.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Slaats, A., Lodewijks, H. G. L. C., & van der Sanden, J. M. M. (1999). Learning styles in secondary
vocational education: Disciplinary differences. Learning and Instruction, 9 (5), 475–492.
Snow, R.E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative
functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
243–310). New York: Macmillan; London: Prentice Hall International.
Sugrue, C. (1997). Student teachers’ lay theories and teaching identities: Their implications for
professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20 (3), 213–225.
Theophilides, C., & Koutselini, M. (1998, August) Freshmen students’ reactions to constructivist
approaches to learning and to process-oriented instruction. Paper presented at the joint
meeting of the EARLI-SIGs ‘Higher education’ and ‘Teaching and Teacher Education’ on
‘Educating Expert Minds for the 21th century’, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Thompson, T. (1994). Self-
worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom.
Educational Review, 46 (3), 259–274.
Tillema, H. H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: A training
study. Learning and Instruction, 5, 291–318.
Vermetten, Y. J. (1999). Consistency and variability of student learning in higher education.
Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt , J.D., & G. Lodewijks (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning
strategies in higher education: Different viewpoints towards development. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 221–242.
Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and
strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25–50.
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68, 149–171.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence & friction between learning and teaching.
Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.
63

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ward, J.H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-
regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30,
173–187.
Zanting, A., Verloop, N., Vermunt, J.D., & Van Driel, J.H. (1998). Explicating practical knowledge:
An extension of mentor teachers’ roles. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 9–26.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-
regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theory, research and practice. New York: Springer.
Received 4 September 2000; revised version received 25 March 2001.

Assessing Orientations To Learning To Teach

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing Orientations To Learning To Teach

Similar to Assessing Orientations To Learning To Teach (20)

More from Karin Faust

More from Karin Faust (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing Orientations To Learning To Teach